DescentBB

o_0

Invasion? I am at a loss.

edit:

Well, on a positive note, all the anti-gun legislation in Washington state is dead for this year.

Now on to David Koresh and the Branch Dividians. The warrant the feds had was for Mr Koresh and Mr Koresh only. Period. Koresh on a weekly basis went into Waco and could of easily have been arrested there. The question to this day, is why did the Feds choose to wait until Koresh was at his compound and try to arrest him there? The initial raid was as follows:

From the CATO Institute:
The authors note the initial raid on the Branch Davidians was not merely the largest in ATF history, it \"was the largest federal armed entry ever against an American home.\" The ATF sent 76 heavily armed agents to storm the Mount Carmel Center to arrest one man-David Koresh. A firefight ensued. Four ATF agents and six Branch Davidians were killed and many others wounded. According to the authors, this raid resulted in \"the largest number of law enforcement officer deaths in a single operation.\"
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9673

Now the question is why? The link has some speculation but I suspect no one will ever know the real answer. What we do know is that Janet Reno, the democratically liberal Atty General hired by Clinton gave her blessings to the raid. While some here made much of Bush and how he was trying to steal out liberty's via wire tapping, look at who really is willing to allow, via Waco and Elian Gonzales, the jack booted thugs to trash our liberty's.

Fast forward to the present. We have came close, under Glorious Leaders administration, to our own Krystal Nacht. Much like Hitler using the Jews as a convenient scapegoat for Germany's economic problems, we have Obama inciting our hatred for corporate leaders and bankers in particular. I found it emminately disturbing that you have ACORN organizing bus tours to go \"visit\" but in reality to intimidate the target executives. So is ACORN going to be Obama's Brown Shirts? I hope not but the idea bears watching.

Bee, the first link mentions the difference between the fully auto weapons (real military assault rifles AK-47's and M-16's), which have always been illegal to almost any buyer, and the semi-auto variants of those AK-47's and M-16's which were legal but then subject to a ban.

They also give you a great example of the flaw in the ban, the Ruger mini 14, a great semi auto weapon that so far has escaped the \"assault weapon\" designation so it falls under the category of a weapon that you wouldn't ban.
Well, the Ruger mini-14 is a better weapon, a better mass murder weapon and a better sniping tool and a more reliable and durable weapon that the M-16 or AK-47 or the sometimes legal variants of those models.

So even if you had your way with reinstating the \"assault weapons\" ban a motivated killer could do even more damage if he chose the legal Ruger instead of one of those machine gun look a likes that get included in the ban.

If I were going to go people hunting I'd take a Ruger mini-14 every time unless I had to go indoors close quarters and even then I'd probably take a semi auto shotgun or carbine that has also always been exempt from the assault weapons ban.

That assault weapons ban was never going to do any good for anyone.... except the NRA.
They have made some serious money and membership renewals off of it because it shows the left as blatently trying to take away guns from law abiding citizens.

Spidey I think you know the difference between an occasional over zealous application of authority like Waco or Ohio State and the complete, constant and deadly control of the Communist Chinese government.

Our rights aren't perfect nor are they always perfectly protected by our government as your examples illustrate but generation upon generation in America are brought up knowing, practicing and demanding the freedoms detailed in the Bill of Rights and as long as we stand up for them then Ohio State or Waco will be like a head cold compared to the terminal cancer that is killing the citizens under Chinese government authority.

If, on the other hand, we let bad law chip away at those rights, no matter how well intended the creators of the bad law were, it won't be long before we are faced with our own Tienanmen Square.

Spidey wrote:Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Branch Davidians…

It's a valid point. But lets examine the situations.

Ruby Ridge and the Branch Dividian's.
Both situations were criminal actions by the government. A stupid abuse of power. BUT, both were against extremely unpopular people/movements. And armed citizenry isn't likely to rise up and fight with their own government over a small and unpopular group being abused. Thats a shame, but it's the truth. Having armed citizens only provides real protection from the government if the government has done something that seriously riles up a significant portion of the population.

And that's where Kent State comes in. It's a fairly good example of the difference between China and the U.S. Both were student protests. The Kent State protesters were an unruly and violent mob, the Tienanmen Square protesters were not. And Kent State hardly compares in the level of massacre, BUT it was enough to cause massive outrage, and thats all we really need for the comparison to work.

Notice the difference in what happened AFTER the unpopular attacks by the government on it's citizens. In China, the government locked down the people and the news. It's STILL hard to get information about Tienanmen square in China. No one dared to stick their heads out of their houses and complain. The government killed the very people they were supposed to protect, and made it clear they would kill anyone else who protested. The unarmed population did not dare to take any more action.

In the US however, well, allow me to quote from Schroedinger's Encyclopedia

Just five days after the shootings, 100,000 people demonstrated in Washington, D.C. against the war and the killing of unarmed student protesters. Ray Price, Nixon's chief speechwriter from 1969-74 recalled the Washington demonstrations saying, "The city was an armed camp. The mobs were smashing windows, slashing tires, dragging parked cars into intersections, even throwing bedsprings off overpasses into the traffic down below. This was the quote, student protest. That's not student protest, that’s civil war." Not only was Nixon taken to Camp David for two days for his own protection, but Charles Colson (Counsel to President Nixon from 1969 to 1973) stated that the military was called up to protect the administration from the angry students, he recalled that "The 82nd Airborne was in the basement of the executive office building, so I went down just to talk to some of the guys and walk among them, and they're lying on the floor leaning on their packs and their helmets and their cartridge belts and their rifles cocked and you’re thinking, 'This can't be the United States of America. This is not the greatest free democracy in the world. This is a nation at war with itself.'"

So allow me to correct my statement. It's not that Tienanmen square couldn't happen here, it's that the government couldn't get away with Tienanmen square here.

China was not afraid of it's citizens. The US Government WAS. That makes all the difference.

Thank you…both

But are you sure that the reaction to Kent State didn’t have more to do with being brave Americans, than with being armed? But your point is taken. (Hint: this has a lot to do with my point)

Bet51987 wrote:

SilverFJ wrote:

Bettina wrote:I don't see what you see so I think we've reached an impasse. I'm letting you have the last word here.

Aww, don't give up!
What if Obama gave up? He'd make all democrats look bad.

I'm not giving up but I've been seriously toying with the idea of .com. I like ethics and commentary, I'm 21 now, I can handle myself, and it will give me a better chance of not arguing alone all the time. The frustration here is awful. I have friends that think like I do, but no one here does. I just don't fit in. I've seen no valid argument yet for citizens to own military weapons yet people here convince themselves that it's neccessary to protect ourselves from a possible invasion from our own government. It's stupid.

I haven't learned anything here for a long time.

Bee

Hey now, I was just teasin' ya. Sorry about bringing up age, it was ignorant of me.

But if you need a good reason for having an SKS I'll get you ahold of my buddy who'd be grizzly bear poop by now if he didnt have one in his truck.

Will wrote:If I were going to go people hunting I'd take a Ruger mini-14 every time unless I had to go indoors close quarters and even then I'd probably take a semi auto shotgun or carbine that has also always been exempt from the assault weapons ban.

Put a lot of thought into this, haven't'cha?

Spidey wrote:Thank you…both

But are you sure that the reaction to Kent State didn’t have more to do with being brave Americans, than with being armed?...

Doesn't being a brave American stem largely from being taught from birth that the individual is king over his government with the power to rise up and use his/her inalienable rights to fight against a government gone bad?
And if you start outlawing those rights then we wouldn't be so brave....

Spidey wrote:are you sure that the reaction to Kent State didn’t have more to do with being brave Americans, than with being armed?

Will has a good point, but I'd also like to add that I think the student protesters at Tienanmen Square showed more bravery than the Kent State protesters. Kent State was an unruly mob of vandals who broke store windows and threw bottles at the police. The Tienanmen Square protesters were a peaceful group mourning the death of a prominent reformer.

There was no lack of Bravery at Tienanmen square, only a lack of teeth. The government of China was not afraid if it's people. It's a bad thing when a government is not afraid of it's people.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't like it for two reasons.

1) Nobody has any business tracking my ammunition purchases.
2) It's an artificial hoop that someone has to jump through if they become interested in manufacturing ammo.

It's oversight, which is not very far from oppression.

I agree. I don't want the government knowing what firearms I buy and what ammunition I buy. I see it as oppression.

“Doesn't being a brave American stem largely from being taught from birth that the individual is king over his government with the power to rise up and use his/her inalienable rights to fight against a government gone bad?”

No, not for me, anyway. I was taught we “are” the government. And I would hope American Spirit stems from something more than having guns.

“And if you start outlawing those rights then we wouldn't be so brave.…”

Possibly, I hope not, but I’m not advocating “outlawing” any rights. I’m just trying to show the flaws in peoples thinking.
……………………….
Kilarin…My comment was involving the “reaction” to Kent State…not the event itself.
……………………….
Look, I basically agree with what you guys are saying, but…the problems as I see them:

The wrong premises…
1. One side works on the premise that the government is the good guys.
2. One side works on the premise that the government is the bad guys.
3. One side works on the premise “It can’t happen here” because it’s America.
4. One side works on the premise “It can’t happen here” because we are armed.
5. Government will always in the end oppress the people.
6. Government needs to fear its citizens.

Anyway, you have actually helped me make my point, that having guns only works at the point of extreme oppression, and only as a last resort, but does nothing against the levels of oppression in between. At some point we need to figure out how to protect ourselves “short” of starting a revolution, because the government “is” oppressing the people, and “nothing” is being done about it.

I wish I was good at drawing, I would draw a cartoon with someone clutching a big gun, while Uncle Sam picks their pocket, and a view from outside, with Unckie driving a bulldozer towards the home, with the words “Eminent Domain” on the side, and somebody from DYFS running away with a child, and the caption would read “I’m safe from the government, as long as I have my gun”.

And a lot of this stems from your arguments with Bee, she doesn’t get the grandiose concept of what the 2nd amendment is for, all she can see are cops getting killed, and since you guys keep beating her over the head with a concept she can’t grasp, you are getting nowhere. Maybe you should speak on the more everyday utility of firearms, in a very dangerous world, instead of trying to get her to see your way. (just a thought, probably won’t work)

……………………

The way back machine…I was one of the first people to point out the concept behind the 2nd amendment…and got laughed at…where were you then?

Spidey wrote:No, not for me, anyway. I was taught we "are" the government. And I would hope American Spirit stems from something more than having guns.

Absolutely! Since I don't OWN a gun, I would certainly agree. I think the right to own weapons is one PART of who we are, and I think that's all that Will Robinson was saying.

Spidey wrote:My comment was involving the "reaction" to Kent State, not the event itself.

Ah, I see.

Spidey wrote:One side works on the premise that the government is the bad guys.

Well, certainly the guys to watch. We give them power over us, that's inherently dangerous and vulnerable to corruption. That's why the founding fathers worked so hard to put strict limits on the power of government.

Spidey wrote:One side works on the premise "It can't happen here" because we are armed.

Hmmm, I see that I've certainly said that, I didn't MEAN that. Being armed makes it more difficult for the government to become oppressive. But it doesn't make you invulnerable, and unless you have a population who thinks freedom is worth fighting for, it won't make much difference at all. And we are, in my opinion, increasingly moving towards that kind of apathy.

Spidey wrote:5. Government will always in the end oppress the people.
6. Government needs to fear its citizens.

But both of those I'll stand by as is.

Spidey wrote:At some point we need to figure out how to protect ourselves "short" of starting a revolution, because the government "is" oppressing the people, and "nothing" is being done about it.

True enough.

Spidey wrote:since you guys keep beating her over the head with a concept she can't grasp, you are getting nowhere.

Agreed. It's let us miss some of the subtleties of the argument. I'm STILL unconvinced of where the "legal to own" dividing line needs to be. THAT was a very interesting discussion.

Spidey wrote:I was one of the first people to point out the concept behind the 2nd amendment...and got laughed at...where were you then?

In this thread, I've been there since page two, and came in defending this point!

So then we certainly agree, that much more must be done to insure we keep our freedoms, and weapons are just a part of that overall effort.

As far as the government fearing the people…(I hate to keep harping, after a post like yours, so forgive me, I‘ve pretty much gotten what I needed to say off my chest)

This is only my opinion, because I’m sure fear can do the job, but…fear is one of the main reasons the government is trying to control gun ownership in the first place, and fear can drive even the most level headed person to do something rash.

I personally believe that there are better ways to disincentive the government from oppression. And since we are a democracy…voting for people that actually want to serve and protect the people is a good start. (I know…gag right)

As far as the inevitability of oppression, that’s just a sad state of affairs if true, dooming the human race to perpetual adversarial relations between the people and their governments. And I feel sorry for unarmed populations, I guess at some point they’re all doomed.

Spidey, my point was never that the gun is what keeps the government from oppressing us. It is the total package of individual rights that is inherent to our founding principles that gives us the tools to keep an otherwise inevitable government oppression at bay, 1st amendment 2nd amendment 5th amendment etc. etc.
The right to be armed is an incredibly important tool both materially to enable an uprising or resistance but also symbolically the right to keep and bear arms is the keystone to the belief that the government serves the people and not the other way around. If we surrender that one right then how can you convince children they have the right to free speech or the right to assemble etc.

The problem is children in school are no longer taught they can be the next Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, instead they are taught they can be the next victim rescued by the government and big government as a provider is the thing we should look to and protect instead of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the importance to stand up for those individual rights .

That total package is still intact (barely) but our children don't feel it like generations before felt it and that's why it is easy for Bee's generation to accept chipping away at the package.

In the context of sudden mass murderers popping up the only difference between those in America today and those in a totally oppressed country like the old U.S.S.R. or China is no one will ever hear about it in those other countries because the government doesn't want the world to know about anything embarrassing like that. Only after the break up of the U.S.S.R. did we learned about their serial killers and other civilian suffering.

So I have two main points for this thread:

One, there is no law that will protect you from a person that suddenly goes homicidal. The victims are almost always the only ones present to face the attacker so arming them with whatever resource you can, be it a gun or just a strong will to fight back, will be the best deterrent. Making people think the government is the only entity that is qualified to defend against an attack is the surest way to create easy targets, easy targets for a homicidal madman or an oppressive government.....

Two, dismantling the foundation of our constitution, no matter how pure ones intentions are, will lead to a much more dangerous environment for the individual without stopping the occasional homicidal madman and certainly will only enable the government to become more and more oppressive.

I understand, and I agree with you almost 100%, but I’m going to have to work on this “inevitable government oppression”, and “perpetual adversarial relations” because it’s not working as a concept for me.

If it’s true…then it’s true, but it doesn’t hold much promise for the human race, in the long run.

BINGO!!

Spidey wrote:As far as the inevitability of oppression, that's just a sad state of affairs if true, dooming the human race to perpetual adversarial relations between the people and their governments.
...
If it's true...then it's true, but it doesn't hold much promise for the human race, in the long run.

As flip said, Bingo!

Can you give me an example of any government on earth that has NOT oppressed it's people at some point? History backs up the idea that power corrupts and governments are dangerous. They are just a little less dangerous than anarchy. <sigh>

NO good choices here. But then, from my Christian perspective, mankind is NOT going to work these problems out. It is our duty to try our hardest and do the best we can, but the problem is mankind itself. The solution comes from outside.

Yahtzee!

Give me a break!

You know that would take months of research, and if I did find one…you would just say ”it’s just a matter of time“.

Maybe I’ll give it some thought, just for the hell of it.

Has Canada ever oppressed their populace?

one. The \"rule\" or rather Era of the Prophets, the Levites and Judges after Johsua up to Saul. Oddly enough, the Hebrews demanded a king over what they had and was working. Their motives were different though. Canada is teatering on socialism as it is now FJ and they're oppressive in many ways, just not ALL ways and not glaring...yet.

Well, after thinking about it, I would have to concede right from the start, because the very act of governing could be considered by some as oppression.

Yeah, and knowing this they put in every conceivable safeguard they could think of to prevent it. Or at least slow it down as much as possible. As soon as you start debating as to whether one of those rights are inherent(guaranteed to those who are not alive yet)then they all become at risk.

Duper wrote:The "rule" or rather Era of the Prophets, the Levites and Judges after Johsua up to Saul.

I suppose so, but I don't think I'd call it a government, just a slightly organized anarchy. Note how the book of Judges ends:

Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

It was a pretty bad time overall. Anarchy is even worse than government.

SilverFJ wrote:Has Canada ever oppressed their populace?

I agree with Duper on Canada. Canada's current "Hate Crime" and general "political correctness" laws are scary restrictions on free speech. If they keep going down this road, I would certainly say yes.

Spidey wrote:the very act of governing could be considered by some as oppression.

Heh, well, yes, but I was meaning by a more reasonable standard. I do not consider myself oppressed because the government passes (and hopefully enforces) laws against theft and murder. I DO feel oppressed when the supreme court says it is hunky dory for the state to take property from a citizen by force in order to give it to another private citizen for commercial development. That's just plain evil and a blatant disregard for the rights of the individual being governed.

Flip wrote:Or at least slow it down as much as possible.

Good way to put it.

Sorry for the double post, but reading over the columbine article brought up an issue that I feel we have touched on here, but only briefly.

Mass murderers are generally incompetent idiots, otherwise they wouldn't be mass mass murderers. There are so many more effective ways to kill large numbers of people than a gun.

If the columbine kids' bombs had been made correctly, they would have killed a LOT more people. If they guy who shot up the church in Illinois had simply chained the doors shut, doused the outside with gasoline and lit a match, he probably would have killed most of the people inside. And anyone could deliberately drive a speeding car into a large crowd and rack up horrible numbers of dead and injured.

BUT, all of these methods generally require thought and, in many cases, skill. Guns are easy, and even stupid people can use them. Harris and Klebold weren't bright/educated enough to make CLEVER killing devices work. If they had had access to rocket propelled grenades, the death total would have been MUCH higher.

Now I don't think this is an adequate argument all by itself for banning private ownership of powerful weapons, but I DO think it has to be an important and central part of the debate. The more powerful \"idiot proof\" killing devices are available, the more people idiots will be able to kill before someone can stop them.

Of course, a well armed population can act as a good countermeasure against SOME of this, but they are unlikely to stop the first grenade.

Kilarin wrote:Sorry for the double post, but reading over the columbine article brought up an issue that I feel we have touched on here, but only briefly.

Mass murderers are generally incompetent idiots, otherwise they wouldn't be mass mass murderers. There are so many more effective ways to kill large numbers of people than a gun.

If the columbine kids' bombs had been made correctly, they would have killed a LOT more people. If they guy who shot up the church in Illinois had simply chained the doors shut, doused the outside with gasoline and lit a match, he probably would have killed most of the people inside. And anyone could deliberately drive a speeding car into a large crowd and rack up horrible numbers of dead and injured.

BUT, all of these methods generally require thought and, in many cases, skill. Guns are easy, and even stupid people can use them. Harris and Klebold weren't bright/educated enough to make CLEVER killing devices work. If they had had access to rocket propelled grenades, the death total would have been MUCH higher.

Now I don't think this is an adequate argument all by itself for banning private ownership of powerful weapons, but I DO think it has to be an important and central part of the debate. The more powerful "idiot proof" killing devices are available, the more people idiots will be able to kill before someone can stop them.

Of course, a well armed population can act as a good countermeasure against SOME of this, but they are unlikely to stop the first grenade.

Even magically making all guns disappear forever probably wouldn't reduce the number of senseless homicides. Maybe in the first year or two after their magical disapearance it might prevent a few but as soon as everyone adapted to the next available weapon on the list the incidents of homicide would resume at their usual pace.

And if the makers of knives or axes etc. start supporting democrats it will be republicans who want to ban knives or axes....

Will Robinson wrote:Even magically making all guns disappear forever probably wouldn't reduce the number of senseless homicides.

Absolutely, it would quite possibly INCREASE them. We NEED guns, despite the risks, just like we need cars, despite the risks. I think people should be able to purchase shotguns, and shotguns are more dangerous in most "mass murder" situations than assault rifles. So I'm not really worried about "assault" weapons.

My only point was that it DOES make sense to discuss limits on what level of powerful weaponry citizens should be able to legally purchase. I'm not certain where the line should be, and I think Drakona has made some excellent points with regard to risk. BUT, I'm still happier knowing that my neighbors can't purchase a cruise missile legally.